/diy/ - Do It Yourself

[Anonymous No.1511198]

how do we revive roman concrete?

[Anonymous No.1511240]

>>1511198
Why would you want to?

Going by the name of your pic, I'm guessing that you're referring to its tensile strength. That's due to applying it as a paste rather than pouring it. Gets rid of bubbles, you see, but it takes a lot of labor to apply. The Pantheon was very well designed to minimize tensile stress. Modern concrete could do that without rebar too, but we have rebar now.

[Anonymous No.1511243]

>>1511198
Add volcanic rock and ash.

[Anonymous No.1511244]

Certain firms already are. It's use is becoming more widespread in marine application because of it's sea water resistance.

[Anonymous No.1511248]

>>1511240
He's referring to the longevity, your rebar shit won't last two centuries for sure, maybe not even one.

[Anonymous No.1511259]

>>1511244
Does it cost more?

[Anonymous No.1511268]

it usually costs less due to the fact that it is made up of naturally occurring pozzolan

[Anonymous No.1511317]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL0BB2PRY7k

here this should entertain you for about nine minutes and 3three seconds

[Anonymous No.1511320]

>>1511198
you don't. there are all kinds of slick polymers and additives you can put in concrete to give it some pretty rad properties. its just expensive if you are trying to build something massive. anyways, the main reason roman concrete was strong was because of cure times, modern concrete is shit because they cure it too hot and too fast for the sake of getting the rest of the building up.

>>1511259
dude, you can get concrete with 31 flavors if you want. the plant will mix whatever you pay them to. yes, it costs more.

[Anonymous No.1511444]

>>1511320
>there are all kinds of slick polymers and additives you can put in concrete to give it some pretty rad properties

Im familiar but none of those poly mixes were teted with time, who knows how they will react after 50 years, plastic is very unstable on high temperatures

[Anonymous No.1511448]

>>1511248
With appropriate levels of concrete cover, rebar will last a hell of a long time.
A concrete bridge in my state has increased its design life from 100 to 300 years mainly by designing the bridge with more concrete cover around the steel.

[Anonymous No.1511487]

>>1511448
>A concrete bridge in my state has increased its design life from 100 to 300 years mainly by designing the bridge with more concrete cover around the steel.

We are yet to see how long until rebar explosion and the more concrete you have around rebar, the bigger is the chance of concrete parts to just fall out without support due to lack of tensile strenght of modern concrete.

RC has great strenght in the short run, but not in the long run.

[Anonymous No.1511489]

>>1511448
They can claim whatever they want, as long as no impartial experts agree In not believing shit.

[Anonymous No.1511490]

stone bridges >>> RC meme

[Anonymous No.1511544]

Who cares? We aren't gonna be around and it may be demolished to changes in cities anyway. The buildings we make are mostly done by cost efficiency as was the case then. They used volcanic fly ash, which we should use more too but I suspect that low supply will increase prices.

What are you wanting to build anyway?

[eNon No.1511556]

>>1511198
I heard they used pigs blood to make concrete that can be poured and cured underwater -- and survive the milenia.

[Anonymous No.1511565]

using rebar in concrete is retarded and ensures its ultimate and early demise
carbon fiber master race

[Anonymous No.1511566]

>>1511544
>Who cares? We aren't gonna be around and it may be demolished to changes in cities anyway.

what a vile think to say...have you ever bought high quality used tools? Try buying a quality used house.

[Anonymous No.1511570]

>>1511565
>carbon fiber master race

has it been done? It does solve the rust problem but mind you carbon fibre is very unstable in heat so Idk what to expect.

Honestly I dont think you can go better than stone.

[Anonymous No.1511575]

>>1511570
We do it here, but we only do small stuff, nothing really structural - Works wonders for us, but I don't know how it scales.

[Anonymous No.1511581]

>>1511575
>but I don't know how it scales.

for small stuff you could have used classical RC, but I would like to see how the bridges with carbon RC hold up.

Interesting build but honestly, concrete furniture creeps me out, cold also.

[Anonymous No.1511598]

>>1511248
Roman concrete is only long lasting in terms of aquatic exposure. If we just minimize slump and tamp it down, then it will last almost forever in non-aquatic conditions. There is no reason to do that, so we don't.
We can also get concrete to last forever by just using galvanized stainless rebar coated in hdpe, with carbon black. But again, there is no reason to do that, so we don't.
We can also get concrete to last forever by just making synthetic engineered granite blocks. There is no reason to do that, so we don't.
We can make entire structures out of a composite of open cell chrome foam and monocrystaline ceramic infill. There is no reason to do that, so we don't.

So nigger, the way to revive roman concrete is to import more water and come up with a reason to build a terrestrial aquatic superstructure that needs to last longer than 100 years, but no more than 300. But you also need to have it be made by the Amish.

[Anonymous No.1511601]

>>1511487
Are we always going to be cucked by rusting rebar?
Maybe fiberglass rebar is a good answer to that?

[Anonymous No.1511602]

>>1511444
there is something magical in material science called time superpositioning.
It turns out that if you just vary the conditions, the graph of the data only undergoes translations. So by varying the conditions and using a half a dozen experiments, you can simulate (with almost perfect accuracy) hundreds of years worth of time in the span of weeks.

[Anonymous No.1511603]

>>1511601
Fiberglass rebar is shit. Coated stainless rebar is ideal.

[Anonymous No.1511605]

>>1511603
>Coated stainless rebar is ideal.

how so? You do realise that stainless steel isnt enitrelly rustproof either? no metal is.

>>1511601
>Are we always going to be cucked by rusting rebar?

Until we revive masonry (no that (((masonry))) ) yes, we will get fucked in the ass by RC.

pic rel, Incas (or pre-Incas?) were miles ahead of us in using rock. Anyone who says this is chiseled rock is full of it, this was CAST rock...we are still to develop technology of casting rock.

>>1511602
>you can simulate (with almost perfect accuracy) hundreds of years worth of time in the span of weeks.

sorry, Im not familiar with that method.

[Anonymous No.1511610]

>>1511605
>how so?
Because the geography will change before the structure corrodes.

>You do realise that stainless steel isnt enitrelly rustproof either?
Realize has a z. And yes, but ignore the impact of price and only taking into acount strength differences, even 304 corrodes literally 40 times slower than carbon steel. Also it's been coated, which is a cheap process that extends the time before corrosion meaningfully begins by decades/centuries. Hell if you do something stupid (at the moment) like galvanize it, then ETFE coat it and then coat it in sapphire, you could probably get get a few dozen millennium before anything happened.

[Anonymous No.1511613]

>>1511610
>you could probably get get a few dozen millennium before anything happened.

that is what you say on your low ammount of knowledge, you havent tested that hypothesis nor have your provided of historical example of your methods working, stone has been tested and only stone held for more than a millennia. Retards and homosexuals who designed the Golden gate bridge probably thought like you.

>Realize has a z.

thanks faggot.

[Anonymous No.1511618]

>>1511566
tools are portable, concrete structures are not. houses are for cucks anyway, its a lot of maintenance and work. The jews lose once you stop playing their game.

[Anonymous No.1511623]

>>1511613
... sapphire is aluminum oxide. Here is a ellingham diagram showing how stable sapphire is. (lower = more stable).
Note that magnesium is note ionic magnesium, so extractive metallurgy isn't an issue. But let's say that it somehow happens because some jackass dropped their camera into the cement. Well ignoring the small differential in gibbs making it pretty slow (if at all) all that happens is some sapphire turns into aluminum.
That aluminum either corrodes away in an anaerobic environment, leaving more sapphire that is immune because it isn't in contact with the elemental magnesium, or it forms a passive layer and is immune because the pH won't be below 4.

You're a nigger.

[Anonymous No.1511626]

>>1511613
>>1511623
I forgot to upload the pic.

[Anonymous No.1511628]

>>1511570

Fiberglass is more often used. Nearly the tensile but it is elastic enough for the fibers not to break if they flex a little.

Really by "Roman concrete", OP is reaching for something that can withstand water and has no rebar. There are formulations (superior to the Roman stuff) that are waterproof, and no rebar is really more of a matter of engineering design decisions. No rebar means you have to overbuild, which makes some designs took heavy to be practical and will always cost several times more.

Id love to have buildings like that, too, but there are reasons why we don't do it that way.

[Anonymous No.1511634]

>>1511628
They also add carbon black to cement sometimes, but like you said, you haven to really engineer around the lack of rebar.

[Anonymous No.1511637]

>>1511610
>Realize has a z.

Both spellings are acceptable. The z is preferred in North America, and the s is preferred in the rest of the anglosphere, but both are acceptable everywhere.

If you're going to be a grammar Nazi, at least get your grammar right.

[Anonymous No.1511638]

>>1511623
this sounds like a sketch for some autistic SF novel...fine, safire...does it stretch? how is its tensile or pressure strength, how well does it connect to crappy modern cement? do you need to adjust the cement mix? You havent adressed none of those issues and you are proposing a revolution in construction...basedboi.

>>1511628
>No rebar means you have to overbuild

the Pantheon dome doesnt seem that overbuilt (at least the dome part), but your ROI is always better if you think longterm, just look at Golden Gate or Eiffel Towel - it eats millions of dollars just in paint, then you have expensive catastrophies like Mirandi etc...none of it would have happened if those constructions were overbuilt in the first place, infact one can argue that there is no such thing as "overbuilt", search for used West Germany tools on your flea marker youll see what Im talking about.

regarding price, once you get used to certain technology it drops significantly, but many time "proper-built" costs you much more in mainintence than "over-built"

[Anonymous No.1511641]

>>1511618

Jew here. ISIS anon is right, you'll foil our zany schemes if you become homeless.

[Anonymous No.1511643]

>>1511637
>If you're going to be a grammar Nazi, at least get your grammar right.

nah, bongs and aussies are just retarded:

Although realize is now regarded by many in the U.K. and Australasia as the American spelling, it is not an Americanism. In fact, the -ize spelling variant is older than –ise—realize predates the United States and Canada by nearly two centuries—and has been the preferred spelling throughout most of the word’s history in English.

[Anonymous No.1511646]

>>1511637
it was a joke faggot. It was a more polite way of calling anon a eurofag.

>>1511638
>does it stretch?
No. But that is why there is fluropolymer below.
>how is its tensile or pressure strength
Garbage, and amazing.
>how well does it connect to crappy modern cement?
Who fucking cares? We can just add branches/ribs and change the surface roughness.
>do you need to adjust the cement mix?
maybe? Who cares. We can jsut modify the surface energy of the saphire to be the same as traditional rebar or epoxy.

>You havent adressed none of those issues and you are proposing a revolution in construction
>le ebin meme structures that corrode. Clearly my previous post had nothing to do with corrosion. Please ignore the shifted goal posts.
Nigger.

[Anonymous No.1511664]

I agree with the over building thing. Build it once and be done. I work on oil rigs they are mild steel. they are painted, they rust to nothing and we go out and repair them. If they were stainless they would be 3 times the cost in metal. But then no paint in the first place, and no repair in the future.

Please nobody say that stainless still rusts I know, for fucks sake I know but its a lot better.

[Anonymous No.1511666]

but back to the concrete debate

[Anonymous No.1511667]

>>1511646
>Garbage, and amazing.
>Who fucking cares? We can just add branches/ribs and change the surface roughness.
>Who cares. We can jsut modify the surface energy

youre cute anon, good luck with your SF novels, but I appreciate the creativity.

>>1511664
>Build it once and be done. I work on oil rigs they are mild steel. they are painted, they rust to nothing and we go out and repair them. If they were stainless they would be 3 times the cost in metal. But then no paint in the first place, and no repair in the future.

But regarding oil rigs, steel is infact optimal, I would be crazy to suggest to build that deep with stone. So steel is best you can do, unlike with bridges where you can do way better than steel. People often underestimate the ammount of painting work you have to do with steel especially with marine applications.

>Please nobody say that stainless still rusts I know, for fucks sake I know but its a lot better.

I got you anon.

[Anonymous No.1511672]

>>1511667

that is one sad looking river

[Anonymous No.1511687]

to the guy talking about surface energy.
Can you explain that shit a little bit? Ive been dealing with VHB tape here recently and the instructions keeps talking about the surface energy of the material and I google it and I cant understand that shit.

[Anonymous No.1511688]

>>1511667
a lot of the new rigs actually float.

[Anonymous No.1511690]

>>1511672

That's damn picturesque compared to the one I cross every day. The native word its name is derived from wasn't impressive to start with but now its just sad.

[Anonymous No.1511695]

>>1511687
Surface energy is one of those magical things that technically have physical meaning and origins, like entropy, but understanding provides very little real utility.

[Anonymous No.1511696]

>>1511687
>>1511695
Also, like entropy, finding a source that will go into that understanding and not blindly assert the common analogy/obfuscating definition of the day is almost impossible.

[Anonymous No.1511697]

do you know if pvc is a low medium or a high surface energy product. The tape is sticking to it pretty well Im just curious at this point. it says it works better on high surface energy surface.

[Anonymous No.1511716]

>>1511697
>do you know if pvc is a low medium or a high surface energy product.
yeah sure, why not.
Just google it faggot, compare it to steel or wood or other polymers. A piss easy way to increase surface energy is to cheat and increase the area per unit area. (roughen the surface)

[Anonymous No.1511733]

I did google it and there was not a straight forward answer. Im guessing you don't know either or you would have boasted the information.

[Anonymous No.1511783]

>>1511638
>were overbuilt in the first place, infact one can argue that there is no such thing as "overbuilt",
Take a look at ancient greece, parthenon for example, it was basically a slab on top of very thick collumns, because of the engineering of the time (no arches). It survived an ammo depot explosion, but I don`t think the builders had that in mind.

[Anonymous No.1511784]

>>1511664
>Please nobody say that stainless still rusts I know, for fucks sake I know but its a lot better.
>a lot better
try welding that shit

[Anonymous No.1511792]

>>1511784
stick flux or tig,
no biggie.

[Anonymous No.1511813]

>>1511783
>it was basically a slab on top of very thick collumns, because of the engineering of the time (no arches)

structural engineers skills is not designing stuff that can last, but skill is in designing stuf that barely (!) lasts - telling you what is the minimal you must do.

If you have no engineers, your only option is to overbuild or to face failure (Greeks werent mongs about maths, but they probably werent as sophisticated - or were they and deliberatly beefed the structures up? Idk).
However the concept of minimalbuild is very tricky since it rarely accounts wear and tear, it just tells you will it work after the build, not how long it will work after. Rest is what we have today...

There actually isnt a precise engineering method to account how long stuff will last, especially newer stuff which you see in modern bridges that fall often.

[Anonymous No.1511821]

>>151181
>But barely last
I see you watched that video as well

[Anonymous No.1511826]

>>1511813
> (Greeks werent mongs about maths, but they probably werent as sophisticated - or were they and deliberatly beefed the structures up? Idk).
They did not beefed things up intentionally, it is just the way they did things. Engineering is VERY connected to culture and history (standing on the shoulder of giants and the whole shabang) For example, early egyptian large sculptures were more like very sunken reliefs than statues, because they did not know how to make fully standing statues not colapse. The greeks used fuck huge columns because they did not lnew or though of arches and domes, which would have allowed less columns because of the smaller weight.(note that the columns are not only thick, but great in number and closely spaced)

[Anonymous No.1511829]

>>1511826
>The greeks used fuck huge columns because they did not lnew or though of arches and domes

Parthenon was built in 5th century BC, didnt romans already started building arches then? What century would you place arch discovery?

[Anonymous No.1511840]

>>1511821

one job, dued, one fucking job

[Anonymous No.1511864]

>>1511733
When I googled "pvc surface energy" it was the first result... Are you sure you aren't retarded?

[Anonymous No.1511868]

I just wanted to see if you could give a reasonable explanation of surface energy. Seeing as how you brought it up in your fantasies about ruby's and shit. As I figured you cant.

[Anonymous No.1511870]

>>1511868

lrn how to quote

[Anonymous No.1511874]

indeed

[Anonymous No.1511876]

>>1511868
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verneuil_process
The future is here, and it's from 1850.

[Anonymous No.1511886]

yep that's what I figured.

[Anonymous No.1511888]

we use the corona process at the lab. you could have spent a few more minutes arming yourself with artillery of the mundane but you attacked with Wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.1511911]

I am an incompetent faggot incapable of responding to people.

[Anonymous No.1511914]

why on earth is this thread so active?...

[Anonymous No.1511920]

>>1511667
>unlike with bridges where you can do way better than steel
Did you know that the nice stone railway bridge in the foreground of your image only stood for ten years before being destroyed in war? It turns out that there are factors besides the materials of a bridge or other structure that can limit its service life. And that a hundred-year-with-regular-maintenance design life can be less expensive than a thousand-year-maintenance-free design life, especially when something will likely be replaced in fifty years due to changing demand.

[Anonymous No.1511932]

>>1511792
It also distorts twice as much, and will crack if you don't protect the back from oxygen when welding. An oil rig needs a lot of full-penetration pipe welds, which means a lot of argon and hassle. The material cost of the metal is not the only reason oil rigs use mild steel.

[Anonymous No.1511938]

oil rigs do have a lot of full pen welds

[Anonymous No.1511990]

>>1511613
You got me interested in ston structures, now

You have any materal you recommend for additional reading? I'd like to see what projects I can do and how, along with more inspo stone structure pics

[Anonymous No.1512005]

How do I build a fap bunker that can survive wars and time?

[Anonymous No.1512053]

>>1512005
Dig a fuckhuge hole 60 meters deep and but a shipping container in it.
Cover the hole back up.

Or you could make a bunker inside of a mountain.

[Anonymous No.1512246]

>>1511829
the greeks had arches, as did the summerians 6000BC. they just did not saw the value the romans did in them (think of amerindians and the wheel, they had wheels but used them as a toy or something, never tried to make a cart). What the romans did was scale them up and use them everywhere. IIRC greeks used small arches in tombs and some passageways but they were not common

[Anonymous No.1512255]

>>1511248
When I look at much of present day architecture I sure am happy to know that this will not last more than 100 years.

[Anonymous No.1512262]

>>1511990
>You have any materal you recommend for additional reading?

look up Mike Haddock masonry on yt, fantastic guy and all around well knowledge, also dry stone/lime mortat supremacists as is every gentlemen.

>>1511920
>And that a hundred-year-with-regular-maintenance design life can be less expensive than a thousand-year-maintenance-free design life

It can be and it cannot be - cheap and shortlasting has its aplication, expensive and long lasting has its application, cheap and long lasting also.
You have to make some extreme mental games to convince me that an EXPENSIVE "modern" civil house that falls apart within 20 years from moisture is what people want and what is optimal.

[Anonymous No.1512265]

>>1511240
>>1511248
>>1511448
>>1511487
>>1511565
this really boggles my mind
All our German has no mm less or more 1000 times tested concrete over the re-bar get problems after +80years

the 200 year old stone bridges still stand strong.

but now there comes the real shit
river gets dug out
>look we found wooden bridge pillars in the mud.
>lets date the tree rings has to be the bridge destroyed in 1300.
>Turns out the pillars were from 85AD
>gee that has to be the bridge build by the Romans.

so this bridge survived fucking 1215 years
>1215 years
think of the people that walked over that bridge in the middle ages they probably didn't even knew who the Romans were still their bridge mad our town attractive for trade.

after the bridge was destroyed by ice in 1300 the people used boats for the next 600 years.

[Anonymous No.1512268]

>>1512265
>All our German has no mm less or more 1000 times tested concrete over the re-bar get problems after +80years

RC is inferior to stone, but there is high quality RC on low quality execution, same as wood...

>so this bridge survived fucking 1215 years

try find a nail on that bridge, its probably all joiners which prevented cracking, look at swiss alpine houses also, no screws, just bad ass joinery

[Anonymous No.1512284]

>>1511605
>pic rel, Incas (or pre-Incas?) were miles ahead of us in using rock. Anyone who says this is chiseled rock is full of it, this was CAST rock...we are still to develop technology of casting rock.
Searching I find only conspiracy web sites. Got a credible source for this?

[Anonymous No.1512286]

>>1512284
>Got a credible source for this?

Consipiracy sites are a credible source for explaining ancient architecture. Pre-Incas used rock the same way we used cast iron, there is other probable explanation of Sacsayhuaman.

[Anonymous No.1512289]

>>1511638
>how well does it connect to crappy modern cement?
Many high strength fibres do not attach directly. In those cases you can make loops out of the material. That is done for basalt fibres and carbon nano tubes and it is done today.

[Anonymous No.1512296]

>>1512265
>look we found wooden bridge pillars in the mud.
Thankfully the art of preparing wood for the millennia is still well know. Pic. related is from 1150 and still stands.

[Anonymous No.1512301]

>>1512296
>Pic. related is from 1150 and still stands.

Stave churches are THAT old? crazy, I thought it was from 16th century. Sometimes I want to shoot and kill every sleazy contractor and can you blame for it?

[Anonymous No.1512304]

>>1512296
>>1512301

wikipedia says it has been restored, but does not give any details.

[Anonymous No.1512314]

If one more mother fucker mentions Wikipedia I'm gonna fucking shit a brick. (Which apparently will last forever). Let's here from some mother fuckers that have hands on experience.

[Anonymous No.1512318]

>>1512314
>Let's here

wikipedia says that people who mix up homonyms (like here and hear) are also homosexers.

[Anonymous No.1512323]

>>1512318

wikipedia says you meant homophone for the first part and homogay for the second part, and you seem to be both.

[Anonymous No.1512391]

Fuckin get illiterate faggot.

[Anonymous No.1512959]

>>1511198
reminder that we are running out of fucking sand to make concrete

[Anonymous No.1512996]

>>1512959
>running out of fucking sand
Top kek. Thats not globally, thats from the current sources.
Never let the jews convince you that diamonds are rare. They'll do one of two things:
>1. Well, goy. We've got an option thats dogshi-uh-more affordable.
>2. Well, goy. Never cheap out, it costs more for a reason.

[Anonymous No.1513014]

>>1511610
>>1511613
>>1511618
>>1511623

this is too good to read

[Anonymous No.1513016]

>>1511198
We dont
We have to build things better then they ever did that are ready today. theres were designed to get stronger with time

[Anonymous No.1513026]

>>1511198
Don't use carbon steel reinforcement, do use lots of fly ash ... close enough.

There is nothing magical about it, modern concrete is simply optimized for it's intended application. Fast strength gain and for buildings meant to last 3-5 decades.

[Anonymous No.1513034]

>>1512959
Just throw it on the pile, we are fast approaching peak fucking everything. To maintain average human living standards we need to start reducing population massively.

[Anonymous No.1513275]

>>1513026
>Fast strength gain and for buildings meant to last 3-5 decades.

nothing wrong with that, cheap plastic had its place and purpouse. But why build bridges out of RC then? RC is good for prisons and bunkers, but not for bridges you expect to outlast you...

[Anonymous No.1513397]

>>1512323
>not getting the choke

[Anonymous No.1514175]

>>1511783
>It survived an ammo depot explosion
I disagree. It survived for centuries, and got rekt by an ammo depot explosion

[Anonymous No.1514663]

>>1512959
''no''